1 / 13

IT Governance Review

IT Governance Review. Presentation to SAAG – January 11 th , 2011. Purpose of the Review. The objective of the review was to recommend the appropriate IT governance and structure that would:

iolani
Download Presentation

IT Governance Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IT Governance Review Presentation to SAAG – January 11th, 2011

  2. Purpose of the Review • The objective of the review was to recommend the appropriate IT governance and structure that would: • Assume responsibility for developing and implementing an institutional strategic information technology plan • Coordinate the efforts of many different units engaged in information technology activities which impact on Memorial’s strategic objectives • Assume accountability for the use of funds related to the development and implementation of the plan

  3. Request for Proposals • Issued in December 2008 • Submissions reviewed by Steering Committee • Shortlist developed and presentations made to Steering Committee & reps from Information Management Committee & Digital Campus Committee • KPMG selected to conduct the review

  4. The Review Process • Reviewed current IT structure, resources & processes to assess their impact on service delivery • Interviews with Memorial stakeholders • Interviews with other Canadian universities • Presented a number of governance model options • IMC has seen two presentations and influenced final structure • Presented to SEC in June, 2010

  5. The Current IT Governance Model

  6. KPMG Findings • Business and Institutional Alignment – IT decisions are addressed independently at many levels within Memorial (i.e. institution, individual units) without an overall unifying framework. • Service Delivery Management – The current fractured Service Delivery model has resulted in a duplication of resources and infrastructure and has impeded integration and the propagation of leading practices.

  7. KPMG Findings - continued • Performance Management – There is a lack of defined performance metrics for IT at Memorial. • Investment Management – It is difficult to demonstrate that investments in IT are adding value. The fragmented investment decisions favor local optimization, often at the expense of strategic benefits to the University.

  8. KPMG Conclusion The review of Memorial’s IT decision-making framework revealed that roles, responsibilities, and authority for IT decision-making appear to be: • informal • without any clear structural linkages for institutional level prioritization, alignment, transparency, and optimizing institutional investments in IT.

  9. In Comparison to Other Canadian Universities…. • Memorial has more decentralized IT resources • Memorial has a higher ratio of IT staff positions to students

  10. The Proposed Model

  11. Detailed Implementation Plan DevelopedHighlights: • Adopt the proposed structure • Hire an Executive IT leader • Change readiness assessment • Develop an IT strategic planning process • Define IT investment framework • Clarify mandate of central IT and responsibility for overlapped services

  12. Implementation Plan - continued • Migrate services once decisions are made • Develop service level agreements • Define key performance indicators • Improve IT management processes

  13. Where to From Here? • Additional detail through the complete final report available at www.mun.ca/imc • Provide any feedback to Steering Committee by January 31st bgorman@mun.ca • Proposal to go back to SEC for consideration

More Related